As a postscript to my last post on the National Planning Policy Framework (can you have a post postscript?), I see that MPs held a debate on it this week. Planning minister Greg Clark introduced the debate by citing a lot of things that the NPPF does.
He said, ‘The NPPF makes it crystal clear, as most people recognise, that the local plan is the keystone of the planning system. It continues to protect our green belt and other areas, such as sites of special scientific interest and national parks, which are of great importance to us. It recognises the intrinsic value of the countryside as something we hold very dear. It establishes the importance of bringing brownfield sites back into use. It recognises and reinforces the importance of town centres. It embraces the five pillars of the UK’s sustainable development strategy, something that I know the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pressed on us during the consultation, but it goes further, because that was not stretching enough, and it requires net gains for nature.’
His speech kept getting interrupted by backbench MPs, mostly to congratulate him on having listened to their concerns. Indeed he also quoted from a long list of organisations which had written to thank him for listening, including the RSPB:
‘The framework is good for wildlife. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
“We had 3 red lines for a successful NPPF and these have all been met. The NPPF properly reflects the ambitions of the”— natural environment White Paper— “to halt the decline in biodiversity and to secure net gains”.’
The long list of congratulation prompted Labour MP Gavin Shuker to remark, ‘I am extremely grateful to the Minister for allowing me to interrupt his long line of congratulations. We half expected a telegram from the Queen and a note from his mum at some point. They are on their way.’
Apparently there was no telegram from the Queen. But my serious point is to agree, at least in part, with the comment made in part 2 of the debate by former Labour planning minister Nick Raynsford who said, ‘The ultimate test of the NPPF will be the outcomes it delivers, not the remarks made by people who were so relieved that the latest draft was less bad than its predecessor that they provided those quotes that the Minister enjoyed giving us the other evening.’
It’s a good point about the ultimate test of the NPPF, and it’s also true we were very relieved. But our analysis is – at least as far as wildlife is concerned – that the NPPF is not just less bad than the draft, it’s actually more positive than the previous policy. That’s a significant step forward, not just for saving special places, but for making new ones too.